Epilogue
It is nice to see RSY moving ahead in the PSU market, since we need more manufacturers and more platforms in the game. This specific Enermax model (Revolution III S 1000W) doesn’t offer competitive overall performance, though, because of the mediocre transient response at 12V and 3.3V, the loose load regulation at 5V, the not-so-good ripple suppression, the short hold-up time, and the low efficiency at 5VSB. On the other hand, it offers high efficiency across all load ranges, and its protection features are correctly configured, unlike most PSUs I evaluate. Moreover, vampire power remains below 0.1W even at 230V input.
A notable downside of the Enermax Revolution III S 1000W is the increased average noise output. Despite the high efficiency, the fan speed profile is aggressive, likely to help achieve a long life and support the PSU’s extended warranty period.
All in all, the Enermax Revolution III S 1000W is an efficient unit that meets the ATX v3.1 spec’s requirements, but at $180, it isn’t a good choice, given that for a similar price, you can get better-performing PSUs with quiet operation.
Before investing in a new power supply, read my article on the Best ATX v3.x PSUs to compare all alternative PSU offerings. You help me a lot by using my affiliate links, which don’t increase the price of the product. I receive a commission from Amazon every time you do it, which can make a significant difference for me, especially now that I am working independently, exclusively for my media, rather than for someone else.
- Delivered full power at 47°C
- ATX v3.1 and PCIe CEM 5.1 compliant
- Cybenetics Platinum rated
- Properly set OCP and OPP triggering points
- Good parts used
- Within 1% load regulation at 12V and 3.3V
- High PF at 115V
- Low vampire power
- Alternative Low Power Mode (ALPM) compatible
- FDB fan
- 12+4-pin PCIe connector set at 600W
- High MSRP
- Low overall performance
- Noisy at moderate and high loads
- Mediocre transient response at 12V and 3.3V
- Not competitive ripple suppression
- Not efficient 5VSB rail
- High inrush currents
- Loose load regulation at 5V
- Shorter than 17ms hold-up time
The Cybenetics report indicates that this power supply is compliant with ATX 3.1; however, the transient testing results show issues on the 3.3 V rail.
Could you clarify how ATX 3.1 pass/fail determinations are defined in your methodology? Specifically, how are transient deviations on secondary rails, such as the 3.3 V rail, evaluated when concluding overall ATX 3.1 compliance?
Reference:
Cybenetics ATX 3.1 PASS Report
https://www.cybenetics.com/evaluations/psus/2971/
Which transient response results are you referring to? The transient response tests with normal loads, which I do, and without capacitors? These are my tests; they are not included in any ATX spec. I have been conducting these for many years now, and they are there to compare all PSUs with load on all rails directly.
The ATX v3.1 uses an entirely different transient response load scheme, which Cybenetics adopts, to check against this standard.
This standard is open, so you can study it and look at what it says about transient report testing.
based on your experience did unicon caps was better than toshin kogyo or similar with nippon chemicon, rubycon or nichicon ?
I don’t think they are better than the well-known caps, especially the last three brands you mention.
so it’s basically same tier as TK ?
I don’t have a clue unless I check enough capacitors from Unicon and TK
Interestingly, SAMA P uses a different RSY platform and shows excellent results.
Hi, Aris, do you have any idea why BeQuiet lists Cybenetics Gold efficiency and Noise A+ in its marketing materials, when all Pure Power 13 M PSUs achieved Platinum and A++?
Did they change anything after your tests or why?
They can always downgrade the badges, but never upgrade them.
…they certainly can, but what’s the point, from a marketing point of view,
…probably none.
Maybe they’re not sure about the manufacturing tolerances, who knows 👀